Literature DB >> 22017932

Effects of increasing doses of intracoronary adenosine on the assessment of fractional flow reserve.

Giuseppe De Luca1, Luca Venegoni, Sergio Iorio, Livio Giuliani, Paolo Marino.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of increasing dose of intracoronary adenosine on fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. BACKGROUNDS: FFR is a validated method for the assessment of the severity of coronary artery stenosis. It is based on the change in the pressure gradient across the stenosis after the achievement of maximal hyperemia of the coronary microcirculation that may be obtained by either intracoronary bolus or intravenous infusion of adenosine. No study has explored so far the effects of very high doses of intracoronary adenosine on FFR.
METHODS: FFR was assessed in 46 patients with 50 intermediate lesions during cardiac catheterization by pressure-recording guidewire (PrimeWire, Volcano, San Diego, California). FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure to the aortic pressure at hyperemia. Increasing doses of adenosine were administrated (60, 120, 180, 360, and 720 μg) as intracoronary boluses. Exclusion criteria were: 1) allergy to adenosine; 2) baseline bradycardia (heart rate <50 beats/min); 3) hypotension (blood pressure <90 mm Hg); and 4) refusal to provide signed informed consent.
RESULTS: High doses of intracoronary adenosine were well tolerated, with no major side effects. Increasing doses up to 720 μg progressively decreased FFR values and increased the percentage of patients showing an FFR <0.75. Among angiographic parameters, both percent stenosis and lesion length were independently associated with lower FFR values.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that high doses of intracoronary adenosine (up to 720 μg) increased the sensitivity of FFR in the detection of hemodynamically relevant coronary stenoses. Furthermore, lesion length and stenosis severity were independent angiographic determinants of FFR.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22017932     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  22 in total

Review 1.  Coronary physiology assessment in the catheterization laboratory.

Authors:  Felipe Díez-Delhoyo; Enrique Gutiérrez-Ibañes; Gerard Loughlin; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; María Eugenia Vázquez-Álvarez; Fernando Sarnago-Cebada; Rocío Angulo-Llanos; Ana Casado-Plasencia; Jaime Elízaga; Francisco Fernández Avilés Diáz
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2015-09-26

2.  Differences between automatically detected and steady-state fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Tobias Härle; Sven Meyer; Felix Vahldiek; Albrecht Elsässer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-25       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: does coronary pressure never lie?

Authors:  Tim P van de Hoef; Martijn A van Lavieren; José P S Henriques; Jan J Piek; Bimmer E P M Claessen
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-04

4.  Comparison of standard- and high-dose intracoronary adenosine for the measurement of coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Authors:  Jens Röther; Stephan Achenbach; Monique Tröbs; Florian Blachutzik; Holger Nef; Mohamed Marwan; Christian Schlundt
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 5.460

5.  Integrating Physiology into the DNA of Coronary Revascularisation - A Historical Perspective, Contemporary Review and Blueprint for the Future of Coronary Physiology.

Authors:  Sen Sayan; Justin Davies
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2015-05

6.  Performing and Interpreting Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Clinical Practice: An Expert Consensus Document.

Authors:  Stephan Achenbach; Tanja Rudolph; Johannes Rieber; Holger Eggebrecht; Gert Richardt; Thomas Schmitz; Nikos Werner; Florian Boenner; Helge Möllmann
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2017-09

7.  The FAME Trials: Impact on Clinical Decision Making.

Authors:  Guy R Heyndrickx; Gábor G Tóth
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2016-10

8.  Association of biomarkers of lipid modification with functional and morphological indices of coronary stenosis severity in stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Olivier Muller; Argyrios Ntalianis; William Wijns; Leen Delrue; Karen Dierickx; Reto Auer; Nicolas Rodondi; Fabio Mangiacapra; Catalina Trana; Michalis Hamilos; Emmanuel Valentin; Bernard De Bruyne; Emanuele Barbato; Jozef Bartunek
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 9.  Myocardial perfusion distribution and coronary arterial pressure and flow signals: clinical relevance in relation to multiscale modeling, a review.

Authors:  Froukje Nolte; Eoin R Hyde; Cristina Rolandi; Jack Lee; Pepijn van Horssen; Kal Asrress; Jeroen P H M van den Wijngaard; Andrew N Cookson; Tim van de Hoef; Radomir Chabiniok; Reza Razavi; Christian Michler; Gilion L T F Hautvast; Jan J Piek; Marcel Breeuwer; Maria Siebes; Eike Nagel; Nic P Smith; Jos A E Spaan
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  Is Hyperaemia Essential for Accurate Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Severity?

Authors:  Barry Hennigan; Keith Robertson; Colin Berry; Keith Oldroyd
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2015-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.